Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Mark,

I am not sure what you mean in your last sentence since it seems to be 
missing a verb.  However, I believe you have a reasonable summary in your 
middle paragraph.  My summary might have been a tad more general (avoiding 
specific solutions):

"Should the WS-Contest specification (or schema) provide an in-line 
mechanism for identifying which added content must be understood?"

Generalizing the question allows for either a global attribute for use on 
any extended content or a local attribute on the container itself (which 
might repeat).  And, yes Peter, we have a question for the "by reference" 
case since it is unclear (a priori) who all might see a particular context 
structure and therefore what each "viewer" must understand.

thanx,
	doug

On 12-Jul-04 08:27, Mark Little wrote:
> Doug, in fact I think that's where the idea of the context mustUnderstand
> originally came from. So let's see if I can summarise this as an issue (and
> feel free to correct/augment):
> 
> should the extensibility element have mustUnderstand associated with it?
> 
> Or are you mustUnderstand for more elements in the context structure?
> 
> Mark.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
> To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
> Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "ws-caf"
> <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
> 
> 
> 
>>Peter and Mark,
>>
>>Issue 129 did not "remove mustUnderstand entirely" but instead dropped a
>>WS-Context specific description of this SOAP attribute.  We deferred any
>>specific semantics or requirements for this attribute to the referencing
>>specification, if that proves necessary.
>>
>>For issue 134, I believe we still need a ctx:mustUnderstand attribute
>>because soap:mustUnderstand does not address understanding of information
>>extending the base WS-Context structure.  We have an extensibility point
>>that may contain information that both sides must understand but may also
>>contain information of interest primarily to one side only.  While I can
>>imagine that many referencing specifications would clarify where
>>information might be added that is of interest only to one side (say,
>>internal references you need when processing the set of related messages
>>defined for a context type), I do not think it appropriate to require full
>>a priori knowledge of this important facet.  As a general practise,
>>extensibility points should support in-band identification of the content
>>that must be understood.
>>
>>thanx,
>>doug
>>
>>On 06-Jul-04 05:59, Furniss, Peter wrote:
>>
>>>Mark,
>>>
>>>Just to be clear, there are (or were) two mustUnderstand attributes
>>>referred to in 0.3-and-earlier  - one defined in SOAP, which the WS-CTX
>>>spec said had to be ="true", and one defined in ws-context schema as an
>>>attribute of participating-services-list, alongside the mustPropagate
>>>attribute.
>>>
>>>129 concerned only the SOAP one.
>>>134 concerned mostly the ws-context:mustUnderstand, and a passing
>>>mention of mustPropagate. The latter was removed by 131.
>>>
>>>I am pleased at this resolution.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>    -----Original Message-----
>>>    *From:* Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
>>>    *Sent:* 06 July 2004 13:45
>>>    *To:* Furniss, Peter; ws-caf
>>>    *Subject:* Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
>>>
>>>    Yes, 129 removes mustUnderstand entirely and 134 does likewise with
>>>    mustPropagate.
>>>
>>>    I'll mark the issue as closed and refer to those other issues.
>>>
>>>    Thanks,
>>>
>>>    Mark.
>>>
>>>        ----- Original Message -----
>>>        *From:* Furniss, Peter <mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
>>>        *To:* Mark Little <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> ; ws-caf
>>>        <mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>>        *Sent:* Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:40 PM
>>>        *Subject:* [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
>>>
>>>        Yes, if I understand the intent correctly
>>>
>>>        129 concerned the SOAP:mustUnderstand attribute in
>>>        ws-context:context elements in SOAP Headers. The resolution of
>>>        129, as I understand it, will be to remove any specific
>>>        statement about the SOAP:mustUnderstand (it may note that the
>>>        attribute is available and can have either value, as is normally
>>>        the case for SOAP Header elements.
>>>
>>>        134 concerned the wsctx:mustUnderstand attribute which was
>>>        (incorrectly) defined as an attribute of
>>>        participating-services-list. I assume the intent is to remove it
>>>        completely. If that is the intent, I concur.
>>>
>>>        Peter
>>>
>>>            -----Original Message-----
>>>            *From:* Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
>>>            *Sent:* 06 July 2004 12:24
>>>            *To:* Furniss, Peter; ws-caf
>>>            *Subject:* close issue 134?
>>>
>>>            Peter, I believe that this issue
>>>
> 
> (http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=134)
> 
>>>            is no longer required because of the resolution to issues
>>>            129 and 131. Since you raised it I wanted to check before
>>>            doing anything (or proposing to do anything).
>>>
>>>            Mark.
>>>
>>
>